Bullock v. Wasco State Prison Medical

Filing 37

ORDER denying 35 Motion to Appoint Counsel and 36 Request for Initial Disclosures signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 1/17/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GORDON BULLOCK,

12
13

Plaintiff,
vs.

14

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL AND REQUEST FOR INITIAL
DISCLOSURES

BROCK SNEELA, et al.

15

Case No. 1:14-cv-00092-EPG-PC

(ECF Nos. 35, 36)

16
17
18

Plaintiff Gordon Bullock is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action

19

alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for the

20

appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 35.) On the same date, Plaintiff also filed a request for initial

21

disclosures. (ECF No. 36.) The Request appears to be a letter addressed to defense counsel and

22

attaches documents that Plaintiff wishes to disclose to Defendants. The Request does not ask

23

that the Court take any action and appears to be discovery correspondence between the parties.

24

To the extent it is requesting the Court to compel discovery, the request is DENIED as

25

premature. The Courts must comply with the order requiring initial disclosures as set forth in

26

the Court’s December 13, 2016 order (ECF No. 34) but no further discovery is permitted at this

27

time. The Court will allow for general discovery following the scheduling conference set for

28

April 10, 2017 at 2:00 pm.
1

1

Plaintiff is further advised that he should not file discovery documents with the Court

2

unless there is a hearing or other proceeding in which the discovery is at issue. See Local Rules

3

250.1, 250.2, 250.3.
As to Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff does not have a

4
5

constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525

6

(9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28

7

U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa,

8

490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may

9

request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at

10

1525. The Court thus construes Plaintiff’s motion as a motion to request the voluntary

11

assistance of counsel.

12

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek

13

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether

14

Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success

15

of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

16

complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

17

Plaintiff argues that exceptional circumstances exist because he is currently incarcerated

18

and thus has limited ability to litigate. He also that he is proceeding in forma pauperis and thus

19

cannot afford an attorney.
Plaintiff’s case does not demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required for the

20
21

appointment of counsel. The Court oversees dozens of cases involving incarcerated individuals

22

proceeding in forma pauperis and Plaintiff’s claims are no more complex than any other claim

23

brought by an incarcerated plaintiff.

24

\\\

25

\\\

26

\\\

27

\\\

28

\\\
2

1
2

Plaintiff=s motion to request the voluntary assistance of counsel (ECF No. 35) is
DENIED.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 17, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3